The idea that social-Darwinist grifter Tucker Carlson, an immoral elitist who was born into more wealth than normal people can image, would not try to get poor people killed if scientific articles were Open Access seems somewhat optimistic to me.

I think it is bad for science and am working on changing this, but scientific articles have been pay-walled since the beginning of science. We made a lot of scientific progress that way.

An important method is missing: unpaywall. Many paper that are paywalled on the journal homepage have free copies elsewhere. With unpaywall these automatically pop up. Best thing since sliced bread. https://unpaywall.org

It did not.

Sci-hub is not down. (Since a few months it no longer adds new articles, but the existing ones are still there).

That is short hand for: Democrats who have positions that are not popular with Americans, but mostly agree with Republicans because they mostly have the same donors.

You mean, she won?

If Gottheimer feels that way, then why is he not spending the money he got from billionaires and corporations to get Democrats elected? He chooses to spend it on attacking democrats with highly popular platforms on most positions, rather than his own deeply unpopular positions.

While Team Blue entire purpose is intraparty fighting. They are raising money to be spend on intraparty fights, not on electing party members.

Such sentences are how the WP shows they are part of the elite and are fighting Americans.

You can address your questions to Anthony Watts. He is the anonymous blogger who created this site because his own blog has such a bad reputation.

It’s certainly helpful in discussions, since climate alarmists put on blinders, shut their minds, open their mouths and scream “climate deniers” anytime WUWT is mentioned. EC doesn’t have that baggage. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/01/25/moving-forward-a-new-wuwt-reference-resource-site/

That is also why this site does not have any comments. It would reveal quickly the kind of extremists that are behind it.

This site does not disclose it, but Everything Climate was created by the bloggers of the extremist conspiracy blog WattUpWithThat. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/01/25/moving-forward-a-new-wuwt-reference-resource-site/

This site does not disclose it, but Everything Climate was created by the bloggers of the extremist conspiracy blog WattUpWithThat. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/01/25/moving-forward-a-new-wuwt-reference-resource-site/

This site does not disclose it, but Everything Climate was created by the bloggers of the extremist conspiracy blog WattUpWithThat. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/01/25/moving-forward-a-new-wuwt-reference-resource-site/

Boosting science and limiting fake news and conspiracies does not sound like "limit less" to me. Which is fine by me. Social media cannot exist without rules and their enforcement. A problem with Twitter doing so is that are not especially good at it and their broad range of users will disagree on what good is.

There is a new system of social media based on open communication protocols. Here communities have their own server and do their own moderation. A system that looks like Twitter, but is much more friendly, is Mastodon.

Earlier this year I set up a Mastodon server for publishing scientists. Everyone here is welcome. https://fediscience.org

It seems that this claim stems from a predatory version of ChemRxiv.

The preprint with the similar name seems to be gone.

Could you please link to this letter. I cannot find it on the homepage, nor searching for the name of the first author of the original article, nor is there any warning on the page of the original article pointing to the letter31866-3/fulltext#articleInformation).

The video I have seen did have a cloud dome for a short moment and a cloud of smoke, but not a mushroom like a nuclear explosion would have.

This article stretches the concept of a fact check as I know it. I would expect a fact checker to be interested whether the claim is true and consult relevant experts on the matter.

This may be a nice blog post, I am not an expert, but for me this is not a fact check and it almost reminds one of the Monty Python sketch were someone is looking for an argument. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ

The UK's independent fisking charity.

If Plan S is a success, it will result in most scientific journals being Open Access. So it also affects people not funded by the funders behind Plan S.

Source needed that normal people using their freedom of speech to point to injustices huts those who lack power.

Source needed.

That would be bad if true. Please provide a source.

Source with evidence needed. Not too long ago people like the signers of this letter were the only ones that were allowed to speak to large audiences.

I see the Overton window in America widening. From being allowed to be openly racist to some public discussions of policy favored by majorities of Americans rather than only the policies favored by the donor class.

Right-wing demagogues have been making this argument for decades.

Decent people should never change their behavior to appease bad faith actors. If only because this does not work. Please appeal to strong arguments that make sense for normal people.

Citation needed.

We have more transparency than ever, did this lead to more trust or just fuel the culture of suspicion?

Genauer als "Europa (Großbritannien ausgenommen)" wäre "Europa (alle Schengen Länder)".

The title of the article is not accurate, Merkel does not speak about people who believe in climate change, but about people who fight climate change.

She actually opposes the idea that climate change is a matter of faith.

The relevant paragraph in German:

Wie versöhnt man diejenigen, die an den Klimawandel einfach nicht glauben wollen und die so tun, als wäre das eine Glaubensfrage? Für mich aber ist das eine klassische Frage einer angesichts wissenschaftlicher Daten völlig klaren Evidenz. Aber da wir in einer Zeit leben, in der Fakten mit Emotionen konkurrieren, kann man immer versuchen, durch Emotionen eine Antifaktizität zu schaffen, die dann genauso wichtig ist. Das heißt also, wir müssen die Emotionen mit den Fakten versöhnen. Das ist vielleicht die größte gesellschaftliche Aufgabe. Um diese anzugehen, setzt zumindest voraus, dass man miteinander spricht. Die Unversöhnlichkeit und die Sprachlosigkeit, die zum Teil zwischen denen herrschen, die den Klimawandel leugnen, und denen, die ihn sehen und dafür kämpfen, dass wir ihn bewältigen, müssen überwunden werden. https://www.bundeskanzlerin.de/bkin-de/aktuelles/rede-von-bundeskanzlerin-merkel-beim-50-jahrestreffen-des-weltwirtschaftsforums-am-23-januar-2020-in-davos-1715534

Translated this means:

How do you reconcile those who simply do not want to believe in climate change and who act as if it were a question of faith? For me, however, this is a classic question of evidence that is completely clear in the light of scientific data. But since we live in an age where facts compete with emotions, one can always try to create an antifacticism through emotions, which is then just as important. So that means we have to reconcile emotions with facts. That is perhaps the greatest social task. In order to tackle it, at least we have to talk to each other. The irreconcilability and speechlessness that sometimes exists between those who deny climate change and those who see it and fight for us to tackle it must be overcome.

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator

Even a normal conference in the geo-sciences is more open than this "open science" conference. There is a limited amount of time for speakers, but why would anyone deny someone the possibility to present a poster and try to find an audience for their research? There is no scientific need for this gate keeping.

As I am banned from WUWT as "punishment" for being critical of WUWT elsewhere (most children are not that childish), here is my reply as web annotation.

"Einstein was finally admitted at the Polytechnic Institute in Zurich (1896–1900) but was not recognized as any star https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1205/1205.4335.pdf ETH Zurich didn’t have a single Nobel graduate at that time."

As always not acknowledging I was right, but jumping to the next claim.

I am sure ETH did not have many Nobel laureates in 1900, the first price was awarded in 1901.

If you compare apples with oranges you get large differences. The graph compares four estimates for the surface air temperature with two estimates for the upper air temperature. Those are two different parts of the Earth.

I agree with the two upper air measurements show really large differences. It would be nice if WUWT & Co. would stop pretending that those are the most reliable warming estimates.

Differences between the surface air temperature datasets are to a large part because some cover the entire Earth, while others have gaps where there is insufficient data. To make a fair comparison between these dataset one would have to compute the signals for those regions were all datasets have data. Again comparing apples and oranges, or at least mandarins and oranges.

This blog post did not age well.

No, 538 analyzed what could happen if all polls have a similar bias. This kind of error was not taken into account by the academic site of Sam Wang you feel part of and praise as less biased:

And a few—this site, Sam Wang's Princeton Election Consortium—are side projects of academics who already have day jobs. The point is that while we all like page views and clicks, none of these sites is—as far as we know—facing an immediate existential crisis. Page views could go up or down by 50%, and most or all of the above would keep on trucking.

This was a terrible assumption and the reason why I wrote before the 2016 election that the method of 538 was sound and there was clear and present danger:

The difference seems to be that the optimistic aggregators assume that the average of all polls is unbiased, while Silver factors in small systematic problems. This sounds reasonable to me, especially this election year.

Wenn Frau Gaschke den 11% für die SPD als Ausreißer von Forsa zitiert, macht sie Die Welt nicht glaubwürdiger. Als Journalist sollte sie wissen, dass Forsa SPD Parteipolitik macht für den rechten SPD Flügel. https://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/

Ik ben Nederlander.

For more than two decades Eugene Linden wrote (in 1997):

Scientists have assumed that any change caused by humans would occur over many decades. They are no longer so sure http://www.eugenelinden.com/ANTARCTICA.html

There is some wiggle room, but these two claims mostly do not match. This problem was found by William M. Connolley.

No credible person may be more accurate.

Science is a global enterprise as knowledge is universal.

That the denial of the reality is an Anglo-American phenomenon suggests that the main problem is not science, but American political problems and the US-Australian media.

The title alone shows that science did warn that taking the climate system into uncharted territories is dangerous. Specific warnings can only be given once a problem is understood.

Does anyone understand the above image?

This sentence claims that all of the costs of Harvey should be ascribed to science and none of it to Texan or federal politicians, nor to the media and the New York Times and the climate change misinformers they give a huge platform.

No evidence provided this was the cost of underestimation or lack of climate action.

No evidence provided.

Which would have been fair if our understanding of the climate system was not yet sufficient 25 years ago to predict whether heat waves would become worse and by how much. That is not a trivial question, local heat waves are not just determined by the global annual mean temperature.

In case this referred to the tweet of Xavier Fettweis linked above: this was about a predicted sea level rise from the heat wave based on models, not about measurements.

I hope more knowledgeable colleagues can comment on whether ~0.65mm of sea level rise is measurable.

You "forgot" to mention that polar bear populations are going up because hunting was made illegal, that they do have problems due to climate change and are endangered due to climate change destroying their habitat.

It would be more relevant to inform the readers that Marc Morano belongs to the Heartland Institute. This is a "Think Tank" that has defended the tabaco industry for decades, even up to this day, and is paid to use the same tactics against climate scientists. https://www.heartland.org/about-us/who-we-are/marc-morano

Marc Morano does this. He puts the contact information of scientists on his blog, so that his readers can harass them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFnhTo6Wd80&t=611s

In the same way some "scientists" claim quantum mechanics is wrong. Single scientists are not a source of reliable scientific information, especially after searching them out for holding views that reject the scientific understanding of the world.

Normally the reporting in the science section of a reputable newspaper would be based on the overwhelming evidence presented in high quality peer reviewed scientific journals.

In the same way they are biased towards believing vaccines do not cause autism?

I challenge the author to find a source for this smear that satisfies journalistic standards.

It does that after breaking down to CO2.

There is no bigger statistical sin that starting the computation of a trend in a year selected because it has a huge peak. All the theory needed to compute the uncertainty of such a trend estimate goes out of the window if you do that.

I wish the reader luck finding this "hiatus" in the global temperature series below. It is normal variability around a warming trend.

Source

I wish the reader luck finding this "hiatus" in the global temperature series below.

Source

No evidence given for this conspiracy of science against humanity. Unworthy language for a newspaper.

Conspiracies tend to involve small groups of people working in seclusion on a limited task, not an open group of scientists working on a problem for decades with thousands of scientists all over the world.

As the graph shows, warming estimates are smaller after adjustment. This is the opposite of typical baseless claims by climate "sceptics" and makes the conspiracy theory that scientists are manipulating (in the words of the Telegraph) the data rather counter intuitive.

Which figures? That is not how HadCRUT is spelled. One wonders how a journalist who does not even get such simple things right, feels entitled to attack science.

Surface temperature responds less to El Nino than the noisy upper air temperatures. As 1998 was a year with a very strong influence of El Nino, it makes sense that the peak was higher for upper air temperatures than for surface temperatures.

Also new equipment is regularly calibrated.

I work on algorithms to make temperature measurements made over the centuries comparable with each other to make trend estimate more reliable. People interested in the why and how I wrote a primer.

This may appear to be the case for people who only know the anti-science propaganda of blog and British tabloids, but the net effect of all adjustments is a smaller global warming estimate.

Source, similar figure is in Karl et al. (2015).

Given how old the "arguments" below are, the authors are clearly not aiming to convince scientists and thus making science more political, while disingenuously decrying to be against that.

More leaves is something completely different from beneficial for nature.

That means "retired" in German.

Nutrients are also essential for life. A farmer can still over-dung their fields. Too much nutrients cause algae blooms and is a major reason for biodiversity loses.

The natural CO2 concentration and its natural greenhouse effect are great for life on Earth and keeps the Earth at a pleasant temperature. That does not mean that increasing the CO2 concentration is a good thing.

To conclude, this argument makes no sense.

The estimates for how much the world will warm due to a doubling of the concentratiion of Carbon Dioxide have hardly changed for decades.

That demonstrates that the climate can change. Those past changes also provide science with many independent ways to estimate how much the climate will change due to human emissions of greenhouse gases. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter05_FINAL.pdf

Just like people dying naturally is no reason to acquit a murder suspect, the recent warming of the Earth is basically all due to our activities and will only change if we change them.

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter10_FINAL.pdf

The U.N. does not have climate models.

If we would not have climate models, it would still be clear that CO2 would warm the Earth, but we would know less well how much and especially we would know much less how this changes the rest of the climate system. How this changes average and severe precipitation and in which regions, how this changes heat waves, the circulation, hurricanes, permafrost, etc. The risks of climate change would thus be much larger.

This wrong claim may be the clearest example of why it is problem that Michaels and Rossiter bypass science and go directly to the public with this article.

The statistical analysis in the linked article is wrong and this is known since at least 2009.

This argument would only make sense if the authors assume that these shelters are a century old and never were pained in that time.

It is a pity that the paragraph does not end here.

This is not an adjustment. Some temperature datasets did not include parts of the Arctic in their estimates of the global mean temperature. Because the Arctic warmed much in this period, these datasets showed less short-term warming. This was taken into account in their uncertainty estimates, which should have been taken into account by people wrongly claiming global warming had stopped between 2000 and 2014.

I had not expected anyone daring to use this argument in 2019. Especially nowadays, you do not need statistics to clearly see that global warming has simply continued. See warming estimate below.

http://globalwarmingindex.org/

The best estimate is that all of the warming is manmade.

To be clear, that is half a degree Celsius, a full degree Fahrenheit.

This plot hides the large differences between these highly uncertain estimates by only showing the average.

This is one of the least reliable warming estimates available. These satellites were not developed to measure temperature, but humidity. The data processing by Christy amplifies measurement uncertainties and several serious errors in the data processing have been found by colleagues. The most serious problem found up to now was not taking into account the orbital decay of the satellites.

I would personally not call a warming of the global average temperature of 1°C "slight", that is considerable warming with clear consequences.

http://globalwarmingindex.org/

Also without numerical computer models we have many lines of evidence climate change is a problem (basic physics, observed changes, climatic changes in the deep past). The uncertainties and thus the risks would be higher. There would thus be a greater urgency to reduce risks without climate models.

If you zoom into an accelerating curve it may start to look less so, but there is much literature showing that sea level rise is accelerating.

We provide observational evidence that sea level acceleration up to the present has been about 0.01 mm/yr2 and appears to have started at the end of the 18th century. Sea level rose by 6 cm during the 19th century and 19 cm in the 20th century.

Source for quote and figure.

So apparently the previous paragraph is not just about the upper atmosphere at around 10 km height, but also just about the tropics. That is a tiny remote part of the climate.

I presume the link was supposed to go here: https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2017BAMSStateoftheClimate.1

My impression is that one fights bias (not just political bias) best by acknowledging it and making a conscious effort to neutralize it, to set up your research in a way that bias has a harder time to creep in. Pretending it does not exist seems to be a way to maintain the bias the status quo.

Knowing the ideology of researchers can help understanding where differences come from and then to study the validity of the underlying assumptions. (Also in my news sources, I much prefer them to be honest about their ideology over pretending to be neutral.)

For an answer to a specific question you can often fight bias well enough to get an objective answer. Selecting questions worth studying is unavoidably influenced by your own interests and world view.

Not sure my comment was posted, so let me add it as a web annotation as well.

Using a shorter smoother close to the edges is quite dangerous. One will assess the smoothness of the curve using the normally smoothed data and expect this variability to be normal, also for the edges where you have too few values to assess the smoothness of the curve.

Thus one would have a tendency to see changes near the edge as much more significant than they actually are. Better leave these smoothed values out or, if the edges are important show data with multiple smoothing scales, where the shorter ones go closer to the edge.

For a similar reason this "extreme adjustment" sounds really dangerous. Mostly such a curve would show smoothed data, but once every two years (monthly data, random stationary data) it would randomly show the raw change. As part of this smooth curve, such a raw data jump would look very significant even when it is not. Would it not be better to show the raw and the smoothed data, in case you fear missing a change based on looking at smoothed data alone?

I admit the title of my blog post intended to pull some of you in:

Five reasons scientists do not like the consensus on climate change

But it describes why these five reasons are not strong when you think about it and that we as scientists have to tell the truth and that is that there is an overwhelming consensus in science that global warming is caused by human activities and thus can be stopped by us.

I admit the title of my blog post intended to pull some of you in:

Five reasons scientists do not like the consensus on climate change

But it describes why these five reasons are not strong when you think about it and that we as scientists have to tell the truth and that is that there is an overwhelming consensus in science that global warming is caused by human activities and thus can be stopped by us.

Reference missing, even if GCMs were the basis of the largest number estimates, they are one of the many lines of evidence for the climate sensitivity of the Earth, as the authors could have read in the IPCC report they cite.

IPCC AR5, Box 12.2, Figure 1

Reference missing.

There is no experimental evidence for anything, you cannot make experiments with the global climate system. We currently do one experiment, that is all we will get.

We do not have thousands of Earths to make experiments with and if we had it would be unethical to hurt or destroy al these civilizations by messing with their climates.

Climatlogy is an observational science, just like astronomy or evolution.

If the contribution due to clouds is natural, the authors seem to suggest that the change in the low clouds has natural reasons.

In that case the authors should explain why the clouds started decreasing "naturally" after the industrial revolution after a period of over a thousands of year of gradually declining temperatures.

PAGES 2k

Even if this relationship were robust, given that the authors did not make an experiment, the causality could just as well be the other way around.

That it is possible that the warming changes cloud properties is the reason clouds are such a large uncertainty for estimates of future climatic changes, as the authors correctly cite the IPCC reports make clear.

This is an extraordinary reference list.

[1] The last IPCC report, which the authors apparently did not read as this article assumes climate models are the main way to estimate the climate sensitivity and the only thing they need to refute to make extraordinary claims on the climate sensitivity.

[2] Their own article in a really bad journal, which I would count as not-reviewed manuscript.

[3] Their own article in a predatory journal, which thus has manuscript status.

[4] Their own manuscript.

[5] A real scientific article the authors apparently did not read, as they applied the equation wrong.

[6] A not even public manuscript.

Energy and Environment is a social science journal, not a climate journal.

They officially have peer review, but have a reputation of being will to publish bad science on climate change until the were bought by a new publisher in 2015.

The editor during the time the cited article was published admitted:

“I'm following my political agenda — a bit, anyway,” she said. “But isn't that the right of the editor?”

I would not count this article as a scientific article.

This journal is not listed in any of the reputable scientific journal databases. https://www.praiseworthyprize.org/jsm/index.php?journal=irephy

The publisher, Praise Worthy Prize, is on the 2003 Beall list of predatory publishers, which publish any nonsense.

Even if it were a reputable journal, it is a physics journal, not a climate journal. This is a trick often used by climate "skeptics" to avoid being peer reviewed by people with expertise.

The CO2 concentration in the oceans is increasing as well, which leads to ocean acidification. Thus the oceans are not emitting.

Energy bookkeeping show that we emitted twice as much CO2 as the increase in atmospheric CO2. Also isotopic evidence shows that humans are the main cause of the CO2 increase.

The observations and the analysis figure need a source. The curve does not look in any way like a global mean temperature curve. For example, the peak due to the 1998 super El Nino is missing.

The manuscript probably means "according to a statistical analysis of observations ...". A reference to this analysis, to the temperature dataset and to the relative humidity dataset is missing.

Reference 4 contains a figure from a blog post where the "observations" are of the tropical mid troposphere. I hope here the relevant global mean surface temperature is used.

This is the equilibrium temperature change after a doubling of CO2. The Earth is still warming and this is thus not the right climate sensitivity.

These are observations, not experiments.

Copernicus Climate Services (managed by the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts) also uses satellite data, but it is not a satellite agency, that would be ESA. I would suggest calling it a Climate Research or Climate Data Agency. https://climate.copernicus.eu/about-us

This part of the article is based on this press release by the World Weather Attribution group.

European temperature this year in June were 2°C above the average over the period 1981 to 2010. Which was already warm due to man-made global warming.

Climatologists call such averages over 30 year periods climate normals, a tradition that started before we knew about climate change. This technical term is probably best not used when writing for a general audience.

The article understates how special the weather was by not mentioning that this average is 1°C above the previous record in 1999. And that it is about 1°C above the long-term warming trend, which is a rare outlier. https://climate.copernicus.eu/record-breaking-temperatures-june

This independent article has a lot of links going nowhere. The main source of this article is this press release by Copernicus Climate Services.

That is right. See for example the IPCC special report on extremes.

That is also a reasonable estimate for the warming over land globally. http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/regions/global-land (This is a global land warming estimate by Berkeley Earth; please take the values before 1900 with a pinch of salt.)

It is not a good idea to combine numbers for the full month and all of Europe with numbers for a few days and a part of Europe. That double difference makes it hard to understand and easy to miss one of the differences when casually reading it.

6-10 degrees Celsius for the entire month would have been special, for a few days is not.

That would be why Shorten bases his policies on the best available scientific evidence and not on the misinformation of a former director of several mining companies in The Australian.

Who pays for the investment in a modern energy system is a political decision. We can be sure, however, that the poor will suffer most of the damages due to climate change.

This sentence suggests Plimer would prefer that the rich would pay for the investment, which is politically an interesting contrast to his anti-union rhetoric below.

This is so trivially wrong and such old well-established science, that I hope a Wikipedia link it allowed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change

Trivially wrong. This time climate change is due to human CO2 emissions. That has not happened before.

We thus also know that the warming will not be limited to 1°C, which already does great damage, because it will not stop before humans stop emitting CO2.

http://globalwarmingindex.org

A small part of all species surviving is not a very ambitious policy goal.

Imagine a murder making the case that there should not be laws against murder because he only killed 1% of all victims.

We can only fight climate change if everyone does its part. Australia doing more makes other countries willing to do more.

Human CO2 emissions are two times larger than the increase of the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. The oceans and vegetation fortunately have taken up the other half.

Humans are fully responsible for the atmospheric CO2 increase.

The same goes for water, it is natural and necessary for life, you can still drown in a flood.

Too much and too little Carbon Dioxide and water is bad for you. The proposal is to stop messing with our climate system by changing the CO2 from the level it had when human civilization was build.

It is fair to say Sanders is one of the most likely candidates to win, while his chance is still less than 50%.

But about as likely to win as Klobuchar ("anyone else")? What did you just admit yourself about your assessment of Trump in the Republican primary?

Could you do the same for Biden? The chance of Biden would not be much higher than the 20% you compute for Sanders.

How much chance do unknown candidates have? Do you get to 100% or is this primary different because there are many credible candidates?

Did these candidates also have a similar number of credible candidates running against them? That seems to be a reasonable predictor. Without Elizabeth Warren, Sanders would poll higher. He is even the favorite second choice of Biden voters.

Surely with less candidates Sanders would poll higher and visa versa. So we need to take the number of credible candidates into account looking at historical cases.

It seems unfair to completely ignore the absolute favorability values and only talk about the ratios. Do you really want to make the case that Klobuchar is just as popular as Sanders? Or could it be that less known candidates are known with the people who love them the most?

In absolute terms Sanders in #2 in your average and in the national poll shared #1.

Just for the record, readers arriving here at the will have noticed that the authors did not even try to support their outrageous claim that there was any manipulation of the data.

They only showed that their home-brew way of studying changes in extremes is really bad. I agree with that.

The fact that the Earth is warming is completely supported by ocean floats.

This is again a claim about the annual mean temperature, not about local daily maxima.

2018 was the fourth warmest year. With the last five years being the five warmest years we have a real problem. Putting your head in the sand does not protect what we hold dear.

This would be claim about the average temperature of America and would normally refer to the annual average temperature, that does not follow from summer maximum temperature records.

The figure again has no source, not way to check how it was computed. Days over 90F focusses on maximum temperature and summer days, the data most affected by the dust bowl.

People may know this period as the dust bowl, where bad land management practices produced bare soil, dust storms, crop failure and heat waves.This affected especially the maximum temperature, the summer temperature and stations in the dust bowl region. An effective way to create heat records.

Global warming is about global warming. There are other reasons why the temperature changes, over the last century the main reason is the burning of fossil fuels, locally these can be large, like the US dust bowl.

No source given for this figure. There is thus no way to check whether this is accurate.

This is a bizarre ending of this part of the article were the authors admit that their really bad method to study whether the weather becomes more extreme is a really bad method to study whether the weather becomes more extreme.

Fortunately, scientist put in more effort to produce reliable knowledge. A good access to what science knows about changes in extreme weather is the IPCC Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation.

The authors of this article would have saved the time of many readers had they read up on the state of the science.

In 1913 there was only one research station, which was officially in Antarctica. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_stations_in_Antarctica#List_of_research_stations It was on Laurie Island in the middle of the Southern ocean. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurie_Island

Vostok Station was founded close to the South pole by the Soviet Union in 1957. With the spread of weather stations the chance of a low record increases. This may be the clearest way to show that just mentioning a few records is a really bad way to study whether extreme weather has changed.

Just to be clear, the main claim of climate science is that the global average temperature is increasing. The increase of heat waves is one of the many consequences of this.

The article confusingly uses the term "record" in two meanings. The term records can be used for the observations that were recorded by meteorologists over the last centuries. The term records is mostly used for the higher or lower value every seen. In an article about the highest and lower temperatures it is best to avoid using the term records for the recorded data.

The article also confusingly keeps on jumping between claims about local records in daily mean temperatures and claims about the long-term global mean temperature. Local temperatures are by their nature more variable than global average temperatures, daily temperature are by their nature more variable than long-term average temperatures, records are by their nature more random than averages.

With all the extra variability in the local daily records the authors can easily cherry pick a few data points that fit their narrative. What would make their case stronger would be if they actually analysed all the data, engaged with the existing scientific literature and made their own contribution to our scientific understanding by publishing a scientific paper. The cherry picking exercise in this Western Journal article does not contribute to our scientific understanding of the world.

Science only claims a relationship between carbon dioxide levels and the global temperature. Still it would be nice if the authors would provide a source for their claim.

The authors use somewhat overly emotional language, but yes we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to nearly zero and thus stop burning fossil fuels (or capture an store the CO2) over the coming decades to stop the warming of the Earth. Continuing as if nothing is happening will be costly.

The authors may want to reconsider their sources of information. This is not what science says, it is not what my newspaper writes.

That is true, climate change causes many other problems for humanity. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/

Experts tend to use mathematical equations.

If the authors would like to claim an equation was wrong, they should state which one and provide a source. Now it is just hot air.

If the media is fake news, why should I believe this media article? By all means go directly to the source of reliable knowledge, science: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/

This is a claim about the global mean temperature and accurate, the last five year are the five hottest years for the period for which we have instrumental observations and like much longer. https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2841/2018-fourth-warmest-year-in-continued-warming-trend-according-to-nasa-noaa/

The biggest and most ludicrous claim of the article, the claim that will be read most and shared most on social media and the article provides no evidence the data was manipulated.

This would be bad. I would love some numbers on its prevalence.

Later the author explains that this is not a claim, but his definition of an academic activist and what is normally called an activist he calls an advocate.

In the comments below he write:

Your reference to Kahan suggests that you have advocacy (science communication) in mind, something I too am in favour of.

The phenomenon I was trying to complain about is of academics who exploit the epistemic authority granted by their position of trust to launch political crusades. People like Jordan Peterson, Andrew Wakefield, Peter Navarro, Richard Dawkins

At the end of the text the author seems to completely walk back on this opinion and only condemns specific acts of activism, none of which are mentioned in the previous paragraph.

Not sure this is true about climate change in English speaking countries. It also seems to be a somewhat subjective criterion to base the behaviour of scientists on.

Is the author accusing these two fields of doing bad science?

I guess this is another definition.

Not necessarily. New fields are founded all the time, due to new questions and new methods coming up. As long as they do good science there is nothing wrong with that.

Maybe it is different in philosophy, but science is nowadays mostly done in collaboration and even if not benefits greatly from discussions with scientists working on similar topics. It thus makes sense to build up a community of scientists working on similar topics. This is not automatically a political group, it used to be called school of thought.

When the author is against bad science, I would suggest to argue against bad science.

Jordan Peterson is a clinical psychologist, while his ignorant claims are about politics in general.

His case is thus similar to Chomsky, but later the author explains that Jordan Peterson is a problematic case. Apparently the real reason is the quality of the statements made outside of ones official expertise.

If the definition of an activist is still someone doing bad science, an emergency like global warming makes it even more pressing to do good science.

Maybe here the author is thinking about "advocacy", about talking to the public, but in that case I would grant all scientists that human right.

Somewhat besides the point, but in both cases, there are valid claims that these scientists could make on the topic.

I study climate change myself being originally trained as a physicist. A large part of climatology is basic physics.

A microeconomic professor could know something about international supply chains that are interrupted.

Let me also add a personal anecdote, I have never been at such an "academic" conference.

I did sometimes talk to people whose science was so bad that one was tempted to assume political reasons, but this would be hard to prove. I would simply call for doing good science, independent of whether this is due to politics or not.

If one can demonstrate this, that person is clearly not a scientist.

Political activists in the normal meaning of the word will do this whether a scientists is guilty of this or not.

Not if they are a dictator, you do not do this by definition inside of academia, but in government.

Not if they are trying to convince the public, also that by definition does not take place in academia.

Knowing that my colleagues have a different politics is no problem for collaborating with them on a piece of science.

It only becomes a problem if the academic in question no longer does science while pretending to do science. That is naturally bad, I am not sure that needs a long article.

What does the author mean with "leading"? Becoming a dictator or trying to convince people of their (political) ideas?

Ideas which are (can be) true (called facts) are different from ideas about how society should work (called opinions). Thus I find this sentence confusing.

I am not aware of any dictator formerly having been a scientist.

If the author merely means that these academics try to convince people that their ideas on society are valuable, I would see that as their fundamental human right.

That would be abuse of power. I agree that is not good. I do not know of any case of this happening, only of professors calling on students to vote, which is different.

Even if the author is a philosopher, I would not mind some empirical evidence on the prevalence of the problems discussed as in the end we have to make compromises and compare unlike things with each other.

Everyone has that right in a democracy.

The conflict is between fundamentalism and pluralism.

You can have your ideology and negotiate with others, make compromises, build coalitions. Dutch people do this all of the time. Compromise is a positive word in The Netherlands, people who understand others well and can make compromises where both win as much as possible and lose as little as possible are appreciated. Finding solutions, that are supported by more than just a majority and will hold after the next elections is valued. People still have their political positions.

Fanaticism, dogmatism and fundamentalism are the real problems of our age.

No scientist was ever a suicide bomber or shot up a synagogue, they are too full of doubt to do that.

I do not think this is true for most ideologies. Most have multiple principles and will have noticed that these principles can conflict with each other.

Libertarianism is mostly a US affair, but I would be surprised if a real libertarian would agree that there is only one principle to rule the all. That simplicity sounds more like a cartoonish ideology invented by the donor class optimized for newspaper quotes and 2 minute TV segments. #CATO

Agree, when the acceptance of our scientific understanding of the world is determined by tribal allegiance that is an enormous warning flag something is wrong in a society.

So actually CATO was not ideological. They were happy to abandon their ideology when it conflicted with the interests of the donor class.

If we would believe in the false dichotomy of ideology and moderation, CATO would thus be moderate.

Reality is a gateway drug.

More mathematically moving away or towards reality is a random walk.

"[E]ach belief that we form creates the cognitive circumstances for related beliefs to follow..."

It is also passion that inhibits thinking and turns people into ideologues.

Preferably people are able to switch between passion and contemplation.

Let's invent a word for this. This is actually important, but adhering to this can put you anywhere on the political spectrum, except maybe what is called "moderate" in the USA.

Get money out of politics. Not only stop the legalized bribery of politicians, but also the money streaming into political think tanks and political media.

Making bribing politicians illegal again is clear, but I would love to have an informed discussion on how to get money out of the rest of politics without hurting freedom of speech and the press.

Could we give perks to media supported by members making small contributions? ...

Defeating the argument above that being a moderate is looked down upon.

Probably even many dogmatists think they are moderates, they hold highly rational opinions based on the facts after all, or so they think.

Politicians called moderate in the published opinion focus on opinions that are shared by Republicans and Democrats alike. These are mostly the opinions of the donor class and not shared by the American public.

They favor perpetual war, wasting hard-earned tax money on the war industry, shifting the tax burden from the rich to the poor, continuing the war on drugs and when money needs to be spend on services for Americans they suddenly discover there is a budget deficit.

Moderates fighting for policies the Americans want would be wonderful, but that is not how the term "moderate" is currently used in US media.

This is rightly arguing tha tone should not be intellectually lazy. I fully agree.

That is also why I like voting for politicians who are smarter than me, as opposed to the American tendency to vote for people politicians who appear dumber.

How about Dogmatism corrupts? Fanaticism corrupts? Extremism corrupts? Tribalism corrupts?

Getting paid to spread an ideology corrupts absolutely?

This incredible complexity will frustrate "pragmatic" optimization of the outcome even more, especially when you are not willing to openly say what you are optimizing for.

We would have the same tendency when we are not aware of our worldview/ideology.

Fighting confirmation bias is a daily struggle, which I expect becomes even harder if you are not aware of your worldview.

One wonders why Ian Plimer makes this argument as he later states:

"Even if human-induced global warming could be shown"

That is really nice for that rock evolving around the sun. I personally also care about the people and communities living in coastal cities and towns and their cultural heritage. Ian Plimer can naturally have another opinion on their value.

Do we really believe that one player in a stadium with an audience of 85,000 can make a difference?

Naturally also small concentration can matter. Many substances are, for example, poisonous at much smaller concentrations.

What matters is the amount of CO2. That there are also inert molecules in the atmosphere does not change the radiative influence of CO2.

It is pretty amazing that Plimmer states in this same article that " Over the past 30 years, planet Earth has greened due to a slight increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide." Suddenly it is no problem that CO2 is a trace gas.

This is the first true officially sentence due to its brevity. The rest of the paragraph shows it is intended to suggest something that is wrong.

It is nice to be an iNARTE certified engineer, but your general eduction could be improved. I knew about climate change in the 80s. I am just a normal European.

"In a 1988 internal report, marked ‘Confidential,’ Shell researchers noted that ‘the main cause of increasing CO2 concentrations is considered to be fossil fuel burning."

It is good to hear that Al Gore was able to break the silence of the American establishment media.

However, what Al Gore says about climate change is fully irrelevant for the scientific evidence against the extraordinary claim in your article.

The main point of the hockey stick graph that annoyed political activists was warming like we have and will experience was unique in the last 1000 years. The climate has been remarkably stable in the period in which we build up our civilization.

So the climate system apparently does not behave like the stock market with "frequent short-term trends".

(The stock market is remarkably similar to turbulence.)

Well they all behave chaotic. Otherwise a lot of difference behaviours can be seen.

I am sorry to have to disappoint you, but there is no linchpin. There are many independent lines of evidence for the influence of CO2 on the global temperature. From basic physics (also used in astronomy and to build heat seeking missiles) to climatic changes observed in the deep past and on other planets.

Why did you publish it here and not submit an article to a scientific journal?

Here most readers will not have the expertise, in a scientific journal you would have to formulate your ideas clearly so that they can be and will be critiqued by people who do have the skills to do so.

If you are right that would be an enormous scientific revolution. That would be be paper that would be the pride of any scientific journal.

It gives the impression that you are more interested in influencing the public than correcting the scientific literature.

It is called iNarte nowadays. https://inarte.org/

Congratulations on your educational achievements. That still means that you have a lot less expertise as actual climate scientists. Many of whom have doctorates in electrical engineering and who invested a lot more time than you to understand the problem.

So I would be really curious why you think that people who have a lot more expertise did not notice the enormous problems a iNARTE certified engineer found after watching a film.

Especially when you consider Al Gore to be an idiot, why the hell are you attacking him to make the claim in the title implying that science is wrong?

Why not read the scientific literature and attack the strongest version?

Reeks more like politics than like trying to contribute to science.

If you start a sham scientific journal, it is probably smart to ask your authors to write an introduction that refers to the scientific literature on the topic of the paper.

It gives a shabby impression if it refers to another conspiracy by an entire field of a natural science against humanity and refers to tabloids as evidence.

I understand that it is hard for a guy in Uttar Pradesh trying to make a living to keep up to date with the US culture war around climate change, but John Bates clearly stated: "The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data" and "The Science paper would have been fine had it simply had a disclaimer at the bottom saying that it was citing research, not operational, data for its land-surface temperatures." (To me it was always clear it was research data, otherwise they would have cited a data paper and named the dataset.)

That is why you ask other scientists to peer review papers. Here is the Wikipedia page for an introduction.

for

Space missing.

Space missing.

Space missing.

Space missing.

An amazing reference list. It may be a record to have 18 of 28 references go to articles you are first author of. And three references to tabloids intended to support scientific claims.

If you start a sham scientifc journal, it is probably smart to delay publication beyond the time you need for the payment to arrive to make it look as if the manuscript was peer reviewed.

If you start a sham scientific journal, it is probably smart not to publish papers that claim an entire field in a natural science is participating in a conspiracy.

Given that the Earth is warming for well over a century, it is rather rare that serious people talk about a warming pulse.

http://globalwarmingindex.org/

Space missing, it is " Nils-Axel Mörner".

Space missing, it is " Nils-Axel Mörner". There is no need for a superscript 1 in case of just one affiliation. No idea what the star does at that bizarre place.

I wrote a review of this article for the Homogenisation Journal.

That is much more than the 48 years found in Kuglitsch et al. (2012)

That means that the CRMSE is computed on single series and that were averages over multiple cases are shown the averaging was done of the CRMSEs (the standard deviations) and not of the variances?

We did the former in the HOME benchmark, the latter is mathematically more elegant. For the results it likely does not matter, but it would be nice to know.

Were they computed on annual or monthly data?

The break variance was two times too high. I may have said SNR was two times too high in conference talks, but that would have been a bit sloppy. The SNR also depends on the correlations, which vary widely with station density and data quality.

This was already reported in Venema et al. (2012).

That recommendation was based on the European HOME data. We should have been clearer it is not a general recommendation. Given the Signal to Noise Ratio in Peru annual is likely better, but this should be studied.

How did you use metadata? To decide whether to set a break or not or only to precise the date of the break?

Are these correlations of the monthly or the annual data? If monthly it would be nice to have the numbers for annual as that is the scale HOMER uses for detection.